It Could Have Been Better or It Might Have Been Worse: Implications for Blame Assignment in Rape Cases

Victim and assailant blame, as well as the perceived injustice and severity of a rape event, were examined as a function of the type of counterfactual alternative to which the identically described event was compared. It was hypothesized that when perceivers imagine an alternative outcome that is even worse than the original rape event, the perceived injustice and severity of the rape will be reduced, rendering the assailant less blameworthy. That is, when an alternative outcome is generated by focusing on the assailant, the hypothetically worse outcome that he could have inflicted on the victim makes the rape appear less tragic by comparison. Conversely, when perceivers imagine an alternative outcome that is better than the original rape event, perceptions of injustice should increase. In two experiments, participants considered how an identical rape event could have been worse for the victim or worse for the assailant by imagining how either the victim or the assailant could have behaved differently. Support for the proposed judgment model was obtained and implications are drawn for trial attorneys who may present alternative outcomes in order to reframe juror interpretations.